About your Search

20130126
20130203
STATION
CSPAN 7
CSPAN2 3
KQED (PBS) 3
CNN 2
CNNW 2
KRCB (PBS) 2
WETA 2
WJZ (CBS) 2
MSNBC 1
MSNBCW 1
LANGUAGE
English 27
Search Results 0 to 26 of about 27 (some duplicates have been removed)
, and i think now it would make sense that we have sent troops to deploy nato patriot missiles to defend turkey against syria, they see that as something that goes against their fundamentalist ideological thinking, and as a result of that, the group has been called into action. unfortunately, as small as this group might be, one could anticipate future targets on u.s. interests in turkey should further nay to have or troop and hardware ce employments take place in theing months. -- in the coming months. jenna: what do you think is the correct united states response? >> well, first of all, we have to be very serious. this is an attack on a nato country inside a nato country. turkey's a great ally. they've been a member of nato since 1951, and this is a serious attack. this is the eighth attack on an embassy under hillary clinton alone. so we have to have a tough response. i think that it's also very interesting that these attacks are happening when the u.s. policy in the region is really withdrawn. we are not active in syria. we are doing just little, minor things around the edges, and ye
. a retreat behind fortress walls would hurt u.s. diplomacy. turkey is a nato country and it's one of america's most important allies in this region. for the u.s., that makes this attack all the more painful. even on allied territory, a diplomat cannot feel safe. james reynolds, bbc news. >> for more on today's attack, i spoke a brief time ago with a director of theture concern research program at the washington institute. turkish officials say this bombing was linked to left wing militants in turkey. why would they attack the u.s. embassy? >> left wing tradition in turkey, rooted in turkey's marxist movements in the 1970's, is famously anti-american and although since the 1907s a collapse of communism these radical movements have been smaller in size, they were once movements with tens of thousands of people. they're still anti-american and i think we've seen a deployment of nato patriot missiles in turkey to guard turkey against instability from syria, so this never lent but kind of -- veer lent but kind of marginalized trend has been mobilized with the presence of u.s. troops and with the
. turkey is a nato country and it's one of america's most important allies in this region. for the u.s., that makes this attack all the more painful. even on allied territory, a diplomat cannot feel safe. james reynolds, bbc news. >> for more on today's attack, i spoke a brief time ago with a director of theture concern research program at the washington institute. turkish officials say this bombing was linked to left wing militants in turkey. why would they attack the u.s. embassy? >> left wing tradition in turkey rooted in turkey's marxist movements in the 1970's, is famously anti-american and although since the 1907s a collapse of communism these radical movements have been smaller in size, they were once movements with tens of thousands of people. they're still anti-american and i think we've seen a deployment of nato patriot missiles in turkey to guard turkey against instability from syria, so this never lent but kind of -- veer lent but kind of marginalized trend has been mobilized with the presence of u.s. troops and with the arrival of
go on and on. nato expansion. all the things taken for granted but not in initiative. they're members of congress on capitol hill who change the world in a very meaningful way and that's still an opportunity if we recognize we need to care about. sorry for that little speech. >> how do we know kind of the counterterrorism, is very much her? [inaudible] >> the question is how do we know when we've won? >> were in no danger of women anytime soon. this has become a sugarless because it's a fair question obviously. what you measure for success and how do we know when we stopped, and that we are so far away from that now a more further away than when this president took office in the policies he's recommending will take us further and further from that because until we can start measuring the hectares covered by al qaeda affiliate, i guarantee you a question of whether we've won or not is nonoperative and right now the measurement is on the increase rather than decrease. so it's a fair question, but we need to recognize where we are in history. this is more like stalingrad 1943. hopefully
organization. it embraces a marxist leninist ideology. it is anti-imperialist, anti-u.s. and anti-nato for that matter. it has attacked u.s. interests and facilities during and before and after the first gulf war. but they hadn't done anything for a long time. so today is the first after, you know, a long break that they had attacked. u.s. embassy here in ankara. >> to you do we know how clear the evidence is that points to them? and i ask this because i've seen some terrorism experts here in the u.s. questioning about whether the turkish government has rushed to judgement in pinpointing this group, particularly because there are any number of groups operating in turky, capable of such violence. >> true there are a number of terrorist organizations from, you know, extremist leftist to kurdish to islamist terrorist organizations operating in turkey. i wouldn't go into speculating further than what the turkish authorities have provided to the turkish media. and we're hoping that the coming days we are going to have more details as to why this happened and why, whoever targeted the u.s. e
-imperialist anti-u.s. and anti-nato for that matter. it has attacked u.s. interests and facilities during and before and after the first gulf war. but they hadn't done anything for a long time. so today is the first after you know a long break that they had attacked. u.s. embassy here in ankara. >> to you do we know how clear the evidence is that points to them? and i ask this because i've seen some terrorism experts here in the u.s. questioning about whether the turkish government has rushed to judgement in pinpointing this group particularly because there are any number of groups operating in turky capable of such violence. >> true there are a number of terrorist organizations from, you know extremist leftist to kurdish to islamist terrorist organizations operating in turkey. i wouldn't go into speculating further than what the turkish authorities have provided to the turkish media. and we're hoping that the coming days we are going to have more details as to why this happened and why whoever targeted the u.s. embassy today had done so we don't know really much detail tonight. >> tulin
of the nato intervention. as someone who's studied this region and i have to say i was reading your congressional testimony about north africa yesterday, it's incredibly prophetic, you've gone before congress many times, how much do you see the intervention in libya as a moment that pushed us toward these effects we're now seeing? >> i think it did push us entirely. the question for me was, was it intended, was it ignored? because i think where i differ with some people, we have to remember what happened before the intervention. we have to remember that they requested intervention. we have to remember that gadhafi was threatening to hand down all the people in the streets. we also have to remember that at that time the revolution had started in tunisia and it had jumped to egypt and so it seemed to me that if you have a choice between not allowing people to be mowed down in the streets, you do that. now the link i see with other places is once you intervene, probably the intervention is always easy, it is the aftermath. >> that's what we learned. >> and i think the question that i h
to the parliamentarians of nato. these parliamentarians were very supportive of american drone policy and many of the nato countries are developing their own programs. i asked in english baroness, what will she say when china or iran vaporizes someone on the london bridge because they believe they are a threat to their country? what would you possibly say to object when the argument for drones that we now have the authority to take out anyone or anything in other countries that threaten us? it is anathema under international law. after world war two, we developed an international law that developed stability where countries have to take steps before they go to war. they cannot act unilaterally. the obama and bush administrations have torn that structure down. what is left is the state of nature. the american government that played such a key role in developing this international law is returning the world to a state of nature where the strongest country does whatever it wants. you have to ask yourself -- what happens when we are no longer the strongest country? what happens when there is another country t
including working at the n.s.c. on detail, at nato headquarters, brought at the middle east and the pentagon. he was advisor to four presidents, president obama asked him to lead his afghanistan-pakistan policy review in early 2009 and he did that for a couple of months before happily, for us, returning to brookings. bruce has written already two books in the time he's been here, actually a third is about to come out, i'll mention that in just a second, but the first two were about al qaeda and then about the u.s.-pakistan relationship "the deadly embrace." . his new book, coming out next month is "avoiding armageddon" and it's the story about the u.s.-india-pakistan relationship and crisis management over the last half century or so. general stan mcchrystal is a 1976 graduate of west point. spent 34 years in the u.s. army. retiring as a four-star general in the summer of 2010. he has been commander in afghanistan. he was the director of the joint staff. but perhaps in military circles, most of all, as i mentioned, this five-year period at joint special operations command makes him memorable
lended to this. she's been one of the driving forces behind nato's no-fly zone over libya in order to prevent qadhafi from massacring his own people. and through deft diplomacy, she has slowly opened burma to the outside world. she's encouraging them to free political prisoners, hold parliamentary elections and finally permit foreign investment. and it's happening before our eyes. and, of course, she has taken special interest in the poorest nation in the western hemisphe hemisphere, an island nation right off of the east coast of the united states, less than an hour and a half flight time from miami. that's the island of haiti. the island nation of haiti on what is an island that christopher columbus was expected to have been the island that he landed, hispaniola now encompassing haiti and the dominican republic. and she has made haiti one of the top foreign policy projects, helping the impoverished island build back better after the devastating earthquake that killed over a quarter million people. in no small measure has her husband -- president clinton -- been a part of that att
's border? who secures israel's border? it has been suggested that this is a peacekeeping role for nato. that is what that was all about. >> my time has expired. i would like to ask you one more question. i understand you may be statement indicating that there is no justification for palestinian suicide bombers. but that there's also no justification for israel to "keep palestinians caged up like animals." did you say that and, if so, do you stand by that today? >> well, i said it. and remember the context for when i said it. >> do you believe today that israel kids palestinians caged up like animals? >> if i had in a party to edit that, i would like to go bad -- and -- if i had an opportunity to edit that, i would like to go back. i said many things over many years. it was a larger context. the frustration and what is happening that is not in israel's interest, to find ways to find peace and security to israel. if i had a chance to go back and ended it, i would. i regret having used those words. >> thank you. >> senator lee. senator kane. >> it was good to see with my dear friend senat
for the u.n., world bank, and nato that defended universal values and benefited peoples and nations around the world. a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions and shaping international affairs. two decades after the end of the cold war, we face a different war. more countries than ever have a voice in global debate. nations gain influence through the strength of their economies rather than their militaries. nine state actors are empowered. we faced challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that spill across borders and the fight unilateral solutions. the old postwar architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats. the geometry has become more distributed and defused as the challenges we face have become more complex and crosscutting. the question we ask every day is what does this mean for america? how can we invents our interests and also appalled a just rule based international order, a system that does provide clearer rules of the road to fair labor standards. we have to be smart about how we use our powe
.n., the i.m.f., the world bank and nato, that benefited peoples and nation around the world but it is undeniable that a handful of major powers did end up controlling those institutions, setting norms and shaping international affairs. now, two decades after the end of the cold war, we face a different world. more countries than ever have a voice in global debates. we see more paths to power opening up as nations gain influence through the strength of their economies rather than their militaries and political and technological changes are empowering non-state actors like activists, corporations and terrorist networks. at the same time, we face challenges from financial contagion to climate change to human and wildlife trafficking that's still across borders and defy unilateral solutions. has said, thebama old post-war architecture is crumbling under the weight of new threats, so the geometry of global power has become more distributed and diffuse as the challenges we face have become more complex and cross-cutting. so the question we ask ourselves every day is what does this
this rebalancing even as we continue to work closely, closely with our longtime allies of nato and our friends and with allies and partners and friends of other regions of the world. at the same time, we will continue to focus on challenges in the middle east and north africa where were have clear national interests. rather, it's a recognition that the united states has been and always will be a pacific power. and the asia-pacific is vital to america's interests. doing all of this, and much more, will require smart and strategic budget decisions. i have made it clear, i share leon panetta's and our service chief's serious concerns about the impact sequestration would have on our armed forces. and as someone who has run businesses i know that the uncertainty and turbulence of the current budget climate makes it much more difficult to manage the pentagon's resources in our national security. if confirmed i'm committed to effectively and efficiently using every single taxpayer's dollar the right way. to maintenance the strongest military in the world and to working with congress to ensure the dep
with india. i could go on and on and on. nato expansion. all of the things we now take for granted were not initiatives of the clinton administration, they were initiatives of members of congress here on capitol hill who changed the world in a very meaningful way. and that is still an opportunity if only we recognize that it's something that we need to care about. sorry for my little speech, but you have two former capitol hill staffers here, so -- >> hi -- [inaudible] general question, how do we know when we've won? like with regard to the kind of counterterrorism, "zero dark thirty" movement. is there, like, a metric? how is -- does there -- >> repeat the question. the question is how do we know when we've won? >> don't worry about it. [laughter] we're in no danger of winning anytime soon. [laughter] this is, this has become a shib list because -- it's a fair question, obviously, what's your measure for success and how do we know when we've p stopped or when we can p sop. when we can stop. but we are so far away from that now, and we're further away from that now than when this presid
to the placement of pay ttriot missiles. >> reporter: the turkish government asked nato to place the missiles along the border of syria to deter any threat of the ballistic attacks, but the turkish group opposed them to operate the patriots. friday's suicide bombing was not the first time that western diplomatic areas have been attacked in turkey. in 1993 al qaeda killed scores of people as well as the consko late. and in istanbul six people were killed there as people fought to protect the building. the security measures work. twice in six years attackers have failed to break into u.s. diplomatic missions in turkey, but that is due in large part to turkish guards who lost their lives as the first line of protection. wolf? >> ivan watson, thank you. let's get a closer look at the united states embassy right now, and cnn's tom foreman is joining us. tom, show us how the em embassy is laid out in ankara. >> well, ankara is the second largest city in turkey, and the capital, and if you take the largest metro area, it is home of the government, and the u.s. embassy in the middle of everything with the
. the president moved and decided he was going to become engaged to nato in ways that met our interests at the time it got the job done. i thought it was smart. the way he approached that was very effective and the results were exactly what we wanted to cheat. -- achieve. we could tell if we did this -- results were exactly what we wanted to achieve. we recommended no-fly. those things were put into place. i think the american people approved of the way that was handled. we had just come out of iraq. the aftermath of all of these places, we need to spend some time on this. there is a monumental transformation taking place. this is the biggest upheaval of the bill that part of the world -- in that part of the world since the ottoman empire. many of the country's -- countries lines were drawn in relatively arbitrary ways. people were put in places of power. it is a highly sectarian, divided, tribal part of the world. i am not sure every policy has always been as sensitive or thoughtful about that as it ought to be. >> i want to clarify. on my state about libya, i was -- statement about li
>> including working at -- number of things, including working at nato headquarters. he was an advisor to four president. -- presidents. he led the afghanistan-pakistan review. bruce has written two books in his time here. a third is about to come out. the first two were about al qaeda. the search for al qaeda and the deadly embrace. the new book coming out next month is "avoiding armageddon." it is about the us -- pakistan -- u.s.-pakistan relationship. general stanley mcchrystal spent 34 years in the new oteri. he was -- in the military. he was the director of the joint staff. in military circles, this five- year. of -- five-year period of joint special operations command is what makes them memorable and historic. the reality is that he has done more to carry the fight to al qaeda since 2001 than any other person in this department, possibly in the country. after that, bob gates got up, and the secretary of defense called him one of the finest men at arms this country as ever produced, then continued over the past decade, no single american has inflicted more fear and more loss of life on ou
Search Results 0 to 26 of about 27 (some duplicates have been removed)